A man has bought a house, but to his dismay, he was unaware that it is situated near a major airport. He is not happy with the number of commercial aeroplanes that fly overhead and is considering taking legal action. The man believes that he can sue the company that owns the airport for trespassing on his airspace.
Could the man effectively make such a claim?
A man has bought a house, but to his dismay, he was unaware that it is situated near a major airport. He is not happy with the number of commercial aeroplanes that fly overhead and is considering taking legal action. The man believes that he can sue the company that owns the airport for trespassing on his airspace.
Could the man effectively make such a claim?
No, because no action shall lie in respect of trespass by reason of the flight of an aircraft over the property.
(C) The man in question cannot make a successful claim in trespass because there is no legal action against the flight of an aircraft over a property. Although land extends 'to the heavens' and to the centre of the earth, infringing on another's airspace is considered trespass to land. However, in practice, the rights of landowners are limited to airspace necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and structures on it. Therefore, a landowner cannot object to the passage of an aircraft over their land during a routine flight, as is the case here.
Option (A) is incorrect because, in practice, the definition of land has been curtailed to include rights in airspace only to the extent necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land. The landowner's rights do not extend up to the heavens.
Option (B) and (E) are incorrect because the man does not have a claim in either nuisance or trespass. Therefore, proving sufficient loss is irrelevant.
Option (D) is incorrect because it is a false statement of law. The man cannot object to the passage of an aircraft over his land during normal flight.